Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Barack Obama’

Protecting Democracy from Voters

Posted by M. C. on June 11, 2022

In other words, it is now the very apogee of respectable opinion to insist that you and I just shut up.


Protecting Democracy from Voters

Writer and aspiring politician J. D. Vance recently offered this astute observation: “Barack Obama is articulate but has never made a memorable speech. The reason is that his views are utterly conventional. He’s [incapable] of saying anything outside the elite consensus. He’s a walking, talking Atlantic magazine subscription.”

Which should give us pause. Obama—who divides his time between a mansion in Washington D.C., another in Martha’s Vineyard, and similar enclaves where he lends his manicured hands to whatever elite cause needs them—recently gave a speech at Stanford expressing alarm that people are allowed to read things The Atlantic would never print. What Obama advocated was the suppression of political speech that is unpopular among people who live in places like Martha’s Vineyard and who send their children to schools like Stanford.

Obama remembered just enough from teaching constitutional law to know that he needed some obfuscation. So he burbled about the importance of protecting “democracy.” Most people equate that word with popular sovereignty, which indeed is what democracy has historically meant. But for Obama and his allies, it actually means a system that reliably produces the political outcomes desired by elites. Which is why The Atlantic and similar amplifiers of elite opinion cast nationalists and populists who win free and fair elections as threats to “democracy.” By contrast, globalists, who brazenly undermine governments actually chosen by voters, are portrayed as the true champions of so-called democracy. Hence, the consistent demonization of Donald Trump, Viktor Orbán, and Poland’s Law and Justice Party, a right-wing populist entity that combines staunch social conservatism, economic populism, and a distrust of elites, depriving such retrograde forces of the political power given to them by the voters.

Anyone on Facebook and, until recently, Twitter has a sense of how Obama-style democracy works. The plutocrats who controlled Facebook and Twitter in 2020 and 2021 waged concerted campaigns first to ensure that Donald Trump was not reelected and that no one questioned the legitimacy of Joe Biden’s election, and then to promote whatever action was being urged at the moment by Anthony Fauci and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

U.S. Spying on ‘Allies’ Spoils Biden’s Set-Piece Visit to Europe — Strategic Culture

Posted by M. C. on June 5, 2021

The White House and several U.S. lawmakers, as well as anti-Russian European lawmakers, were huffing and puffing that Biden would reproach Putin over allegations of the Kremlin’s malign conduct. Those allegations include Russian intelligence agencies and hackers interfering in Western democracies. How richly ironic! And for people willing to see the truth, how powerfully self-indicting of American and European actual malign conduct, as opposed to the baseless claims made against Moscow.

Biden is to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Geneva only days after his embarrassing encounter with European vassals, er, “allies”.

American President Joe Biden flies to Europe next week for a series of major summits in what was being billed as a happy revival for the transatlantic alliance. Four years of bitter and divisive chaos under Trump were supposed to be sutured by the new president declaring the importance of a strong U.S.-European partnership and “shared values”.

Unfortunately for Biden, the scandal over U.S. spying on European governments looks like casting a shadow on the “happy family reunion”. What’s more, this American president is fully implicated in the illicit snooping.

The timing also upsets Biden’s attempt to burnish America’s image as a defender of “rules-based order” and “shared Western values” when he meets Russian leader Vladimir Putin in Geneva for their first face-to-face presidential summit.

Several European media outlets published reports last week on how Denmark’s intelligence services were spying on European neighbors on behalf of the American National Security Agency. The illegal surveillance is said to date back to 2013 when Barack Obama was in the White House and Joe Biden was his vice president. Whistleblower Edward Snowden, who formerly worked as a contractor for the NSA and who is now in exile in Russia to avoid persecution in the United States, claims that Biden was closely involved in the surveillance operations.

There was stunned silence among the European governments last week when the reports emerged. However, this week several leaders, including Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron, have become more vocal in denouncing the reports of American spying as “outrageous” and “unacceptable”.

When Biden attends the G7 summit in England on June 11-13 and the NATO meeting in Brussels on June 14, his first in-person encounter with allies since becoming president will be strained by awkward questions about the reported U.S. tapping of private communications.

As Danish defense analyst Peter Viggo Jakobsen drily observed: “This is an embarrassing matter for the Americans. Joe Biden must try to find a grimace useful for sweeping this under the carpet.”

The Europeans bear some of the shame too. For their embarrassment stems from them being seen in the eyes of their own citizens as pathetic vassals under American domination.

Indeed, the latest reports of illicit spying on allies are hardly new. Snowden revealed as far back as 2013 that the Obama administration was tapping Merkel’s private phone conversations. Snowden also revealed that the British intelligence agency, GCHQ, has been acting as Washington’s ears and eyes over Europe for many years.

And as our columnist Ron Ridenour commented in Strategic Culture Foundation this week, the Danish intelligence services have been colluding with the American NSA for decades to spy on Danish citizens and European governments. In an article we published back in January 2021 – five months before the latest media furore – Ridenour explained how Denmark has been “serving U.S. wars for three decades”, including by facilitating illegal surveillance across Europe.

See also his investigative report published in December 2020 in which he commented: “Denmark’s military allows the United States National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on the nation’s Finance Ministry, Foreign Ministry, private weapons company Terma, the entire Danish population, and Denmark’s closest neighbors: Sweden, Norway, France, Germany and the Netherlands. Information that the NSA acquired, with the aid of Denmark’s Defense Intelligence Service (FE) under the command of the Defense Department, was used to convince the government to buy Lockheed Martin’s Joint Strike Fighter F-35 capable of carrying nuclear weapons, albeit Denmark forbids the possession of nuclear weapons on its territory.”

So, the latest scandal is actually an old – if under-reported – story of malign conduct by the Americans towards their European allies, and often with European assistance against their own citizens and neighbors. In this context, European leaders will scarcely be surprised by the supposed latest revelations. There is good reason to believe that all European intelligence agencies are in bed with their American counterpart.

What the Europeans are obliged to do at the forthcoming summits with Biden is to put on a public show of indignation and protest. Not so much to actually challenge the American leader but to try to appear as less than mere vassals in the eyes of their own citizens.

In other words, the U.S. spying and European collusion will continue into the future. There will be no stopping the intrusion any time soon. Because European governments and their political establishments are not independent of American power. That is reflected in the way the European Union abjectly acquiesces to a reckless and criminal U.S. policy of hostility towards Russia, China, Iran, and other nations.

The political benefit from the reports of U.S. mass espionage and European collusion is the empowering perspective it gives to European citizens and others around the world.

Almost with comic timing, Biden is to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin on June 16 in Geneva only days after his embarrassing encounter with European vassals, er sorry, “allies”.

The White House and several U.S. lawmakers, as well as anti-Russian European lawmakers, were huffing and puffing that Biden would reproach Putin over allegations of the Kremlin’s malign conduct. Those allegations include Russian intelligence agencies and hackers interfering in Western democracies. How richly ironic! And for people willing to see the truth, how powerfully self-indicting of American and European actual malign conduct, as opposed to the baseless claims made against Moscow.

Strategic Culture Foundation | Republishing is welcomed with reference to Strategic Culture online journal

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

How a Secret Obama Directive Brought Chaos to Our World – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on February 5, 2021

The Top Secret PSD-11 report that the Task Force drew up was partially revealed in a series of legal Freedom of Information Act requests to the State Department. Released official documents revealed that the NSC Task Force had concluded that the Muslim Brotherhood was a “viable movement” for the US Government to support throughout North Africa and the Middle East. A resulting Presidential directive ordered American diplomats to make contacts with top Muslim Brotherhood leaders and gave active support to the organization’s drive for power in key nations like Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and Syria, at the 2011 outset of the “Arab Spring.”

By F. William Engdahl

Obama’s PSD-11 and the Muslim Brotherhood

In 2010 the US Administration under President Barack Obama had developed a top secret blueprint for the most ambitious and far-ranging series of US-backed regime change across the Islamic Middle East since World War I and the Anglo-French Sykes-Picot agreement. It was to set off a wave of wars and chaos, of failed states and floods of war refugees unimaginable to the most cynical veteran diplomat, and beyond the belief of most lay persons in the world.

In August, 2010, six months before Tunisia’s Jasmine Revolution was launched by the Washington NGOs including the NED, the Soros Foundations, Freedom House and others, President Obama signed Presidential Study Directive-11 (PDS-11), ordering Washington government agencies to prepare for “change.”  The change was to be a radical policy calling for Washington’s backing for the secret fundamentalist Islamic Muslim Brotherhood sect across the Middle East Muslim world, and with it, the unleashing of a reign of terror that would change the entire world.

According to US Congressional testimony of Peter Hoekstra, former Chairman of the US House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Obama Administration PSD-11 directive–as of March 2017 still classified Top Secret–“ordered a government-wide reassessment of prospects for political reform in the Middle East and of the Muslim Brotherhood’s role in the process. ” [1]

A Grandiose Task Force

To draft the contents of PSD-11, a top secret task force was established within the Obama National Security Council (NSC), headed by Dennis Ross, Samantha Power, Gayle Smith, Ben Rhodes and Michael McFaul. [2]

The PSD-11 Task Force members were remarkable in many regards. Samantha Power, who would go on to become Obama’s UN Ambassador and lead the demonizing of Russia after the CIA’s Ukraine Color Revolution coup in 2014, was to play an instrumental role in convincing President Obama that Libya’s Mohammar Qaddafi must be militarily removed for what she called  “humanitarian reasons.” [3] Dennis Ross, accused by Palestinian opponents of being “more pro-Israeli than the Israelis,” co-founded the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)-sponsored Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP). He was Special Assistant to President Obama and Senior Director at the NSC for the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, Pakistan and South Asia when he was part of the PSD-11 task force. [4]

Gayle Smith would later go on in 2015 to head the USAID, the CIA-linked State Department agency that funneled US taxpayer millions to finance the NGOs of the Arab Spring and other Color Revolution regime changes.[5] Michael McFaul, who once described himself as a “specialist on democracy, anti-dictator movements, revolutions,” was later named Obama’s Ambassador to Moscow where he coordinated opposition protests against Putin. [6]

Perhaps the most influential of the PSD-11 Task Force members who formulated the top secret Obama Administration radical policy change to back Muslim Brotherhood regime transitions through the Arab Spring, was the one least qualified to make United States Government policy on the Middle East in terms of professional background. His name was Ben Rhodes.

Rhodes’ official title was invented by the Obama White House just for him–Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications and Speechwriting. He would write all major Obama foreign policy speeches for seven years, until January, 2017 when Obama left office. He was a mere 32 years old when he joined the fateful PSD-11 NSC Task Force, with academic study that had included a major in English literature and a Masters degree in “creative writing-” Rhodes had no prior diplomatic nor academic experience with the Middle East. Rhodes, who as speechwriter met with President Obama sometimes up to three hours daily, was instrumental among other things in convincing Obama to withdraw support from Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak, becoming a key adviser during the 2011 Arab Spring, and then joining with Samantha Power, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and others, convincing the President to use military force to topple Libya’s Qaddafi.[7]

The Top Secret PSD-11 report that the Task Force drew up was partially revealed in a series of legal Freedom of Information Act requests to the State Department. Released official documents revealed that the NSC Task Force had concluded that the Muslim Brotherhood was a “viable movement” for the US Government to support throughout North Africa and the Middle East. A resulting Presidential directive ordered American diplomats to make contacts with top Muslim Brotherhood leaders and gave active support to the organization’s drive for power in key nations like Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and Syria, at the 2011 outset of the “Arab Spring.” The PDS-11 secret paper came to the bizarre conclusion that the Muslim Brotherhood’s brand of political Islam, combined with its fervent nationalism, could lead to “reform and stability.” It was a lie, a lie well known to the Obama PSD-11 Task Force members. [8]

The True Muslim Brotherhood

The Muslim Brotherhood or Ikhwan–Arabic for The Brotherhood–is a secret masonic-like organization with a covert  or underground terrorist arm and a public facade of “peaceful doing of charity.” It was founded in Egypt in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna who developed the cult’s guiding motto. The credo of his Society of Muslim Brothers was incorporated into a chant of six short phrases:

Allah is our goal; The Prophet is our Leader; The Qur’an is our Constitution; Jihad is our Way; Death in the service of Allah is the loftiest of our wishes; Allah is Great, Allah is Great[9]

Al-Banna created a secret or hidden arm of the Ikhwan in Egypt and later worldwide, known as the Special Section (al-nizam al-khass), or, as it was referred to by the British in Egypt, the Secret Apparatus (al-jihaz al-sirri). That was the military wing of the Brotherhood, in effect, the “assassination bureau.” Al-Banna taught his recruits, exclusively male, that “Jihad is an obligation of every Muslim.” He preached the nobility of “Death in the Service of Allah,” and wrote, Allah grants a “noble life to that nation which knows how to die a noble death.” He preached a death cult in which “Victory can only come with the mastery of the ‘Art of Death.’” For the Brotherhood that “mastery” was perfected in the killing of “infidels” in Jihad or Holy War in the name of Allah. The infidels could be other Muslims such as Shi’ite or Sufi who did not follow Al-Banna’s strict Sunni practice, or Christians. [10]

Hasan Al-Banna called for adoption of the very strict Islamic Shari’a law, the complete segregation of male and female students, with a separate curriculum for girls, a prohibition of dancing, and a call for Islamic states to eventually unify in a Caliphate. [11]

During World War II, leading Muslim Brotherhood figures spent exile from British-controlled Egypt by fleeing to Berlin where, among others, Al Banna’s close Muslim brotherhood ally, Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, worked intimately with the SS and Heinrich Himmler to create special Muslim Brotherhood terror units of the SS, so-called Handschar SS, to kill Soviet soldiers and Jews. In the 1950’s the CIA discovered the Nazi Muslim Brotherhood recruits in exile in postwar Munich and decided they could be “useful.” [12]

Virtually every major Jihadist terrorist organization and leader came out of the Muslim Brotherhood. Osama bin Laden, who worked for the CIA in Pakistan recruiting Jihadist Mujahideen to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, was a Muslim Brotherhood member who was recruited by the CIA and Saudi Intelligence head Prince Turki al-Faisal, to create what came to be called Al Qaeda. Other known terrorist members of the Ikhwan were Al Qaeda’s Ayman Al-Zawahiri, and the blind Sheik Omar Abdul-Rahman who recently died in a US prison serving time for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Sheikh Omar was accused of conspiring to assassinate Egypt’s Mubarak and masterminding the Muslim Brotherhood assassination of Anwar Sadat in addition to the bombing of the World Trade Center. [13]

The members of the Obama Administration National Security Council PSD-11 Task Force that recommended a US Government embrace of the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood in Islamic countries of the Arab Middle East, knew very well who they were dealing with. Since the 1950’s the CIA had worked with the Ikhwan around the world. Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda in Iraq and in Syria, al Nusra Front in Syria, as well as the so-called Islamic State or ISIS all were created out of Muslim Brotherhood networks, changing names as a chameleon lizard changes color to suit its surroundings.

The seeds of Al Qaeda in Iraq and Syria and later of ISIS or IS, the murderous wars and chaos sweeping across the Arab Middle East and into Western Europe since 2010, could all be directly traced back to those Washington policies, their so-called Arab Spring, coming from that August 2010 PSD-11 Presidential Task Force directive. Now the Obama Administration was to apply their Muslim Brotherhood project in Tunisia in a Color Revolution led by its fake democracy NGO’s.

[1] Peter Hoekstra, The Investigative Project on Terrorism, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, September 22, 2016,

[2] MEB, The Case of Egypt (2): Six Months of Insider Emails from Obama Administration Show Groundwork for Muslim Brotherhood Power Grabs, Middle East Briefing, June 30, 2014,

[3] Wikipedia, Samantha Power,

[4] Wikipedia, Dennis Ross,

[5] Wikipedia, Gayle Smith,

[6] Wikipedia, Michael McFaul,

[7] Wikipedia, Ben Rhodes,; Mark Landler,Worldly at 35, and Shaping Obama’s Voice, The New York Times, March 15, 2013,

[8] MEB, The Case of Egypt (2)…, op. cit.

[9] F. William Engdahl, The Lost Hegemon, mineBooks, Wiesbaden, 2016, pp. 67-71.

[10] Richard P. Miller, The Society of the Muslim Brothers, Oxford University Press, New York, 1969, p. 206-207.

[11] Wikipedia, Muslim Brotherhood,

[12] F. William Engdahl, The Lost Hegemon…, op. cit., pp. 75-85.

[13] Leo Hohmann, Georgetown prof.: ‘Muslim Brotherhood does not exist in US,’ March 5, 2017,

This originally appeared on  F. William Engdahl Newsletter.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Hypocrisy Alert: Obama Won First Election By Challenging Voter Fraud – American Thinker

Posted by M. C. on November 19, 2020

Contrary to the advice he is now giving Trump, Obama did not let it go. He filed a challenge with the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners. Not only did the challenge take out Palmer, but it also eliminated “several other Democrats with bad petitions.”

After months of hearing there is no evidence of voter fraud anywhere, young readers have to be shocked to learn just how casually Democratic politicians resorted to fraud (and still do) in cities like Chicago.

By Jack Cashill

The first question the fawning Scott Pelley of 60 Minutes asked former president Barack Obama during their interview this past Sunday was this: “What is your advice in this moment for President Trump?”

Pelley was referring specifically to Trump’s continued challenge to the posted results of the November 3rd election. “When your time is up, then it is your job to put the country first and think beyond your own ego and your own interests and your own disappointments,” Obama pontificated. “My advice to President Trump is if you want, at this late stage in the game to be remembered as somebody who put country first, it’s time for you to do the same thing.”

More specifically, Obama insisted that Trump should have conceded no more than two days after the election. “When you look at the numbers, objectively, Joe Biden will have won handily,” Obama continued. “There is no scenario in which any of those states would turn the other way and certainly not enough to reverse the outcome of the election.”

Although Pelley was interviewing Obama about his new memoir, A Promised Land, neither of the two obviously thought it prudent to share with viewers how Obama won his first political campaign, a story that Obama tells in his new memoir.

Obama’s political rise began with the fall of one Mel Reynolds, a Democratic congressman from Chicago who made the rookie mistake of getting caught having a sexual relationship with a chatty 16-year-old campaign worker. This led to his indictment by a Cook County grand jury on criminal charges ranging from child pornography to obstruction of justice.

In Chicago, given that it takes an indictment to dislodge a sitting member of Congress, there was a Yukon-worthy rush to fill this open seat.  A likely candidate was Alice Palmer, the state senator from Obama’s district and something of a mentor to Obama. As Obama tells the story, he filed for her Senate seat with her blessing once she declared for Congress. The fact that Palmer was a fellow traveler, if not an outright communist, is a story for another day.

Unfortunately for Palmer, Michelle Obama’s family friend, Jesse Jackson Jr., also decided to file for the seat and bested Palmer in the primary. Like Reynolds, Jackson’s congressional career led straight to the hoosegow. In 2013, as the New York Times reported, “the popular young Democratic congressman” was sentenced to 30 months in the slammer and his wife 12 months for living “lavishly” off campaign donations and failing to report more than a half million on their tax returns. This apple did not fall far from the Jackson family tree.

Having lost in the primary, Palmer filed anew for her old Senate seat, and here is where things got sticky for Obama. “A few of her longtime supporters asked for a meeting, and when I showed up they advised me to get out of the race,” writes Obama. “The community couldn’t afford to give up Alice’s seniority, they said. I should be patient; my turn would come.”

Obama chose not to think beyond his own ego and his own interests and his own disappointments. While trying to rationalize why he should stay in the race, two of his supporters showed up “looking like they’d won the lottery.” Given the prevalence of voter fraud in Chicago, these veteran pols did need much in the way of luck. They just had to know where to look.

The one supporter said of the signatures on Palmer’s petition: “They’re terrible. Worst I’ve ever seen. All those Negroes who were trying to bully you out of the race, they didn’t bother actually doing the work. This could get her knocked off the ballot.” 

Writes Obama: “It was true; the petitions Alice had submitted appeared to be filled with invalid signatures: people whose addresses were outside the district, multiple signatures with different names but the same handwriting.”

After months of hearing there is no evidence of voter fraud anywhere, young readers have to be shocked to learn just how casually Democratic politicians resorted to fraud (and still do) in cities like Chicago.

When Obama wavered about challenging Palmer’s signatures, a fellow supporter upbraided him. “If you let this go, you might as well go back to being a professor and whatnot, ’cause politics is not for you,” she told him. “You will get chewed up and won’t be doing anybody a damn bit of good.”

Contrary to the advice he is now giving Trump, Obama did not let it go. He filed a challenge with the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.  Not only did the challenge take out Palmer, but it also eliminated “several other Democrats with bad petitions.” Obama ran unopposed in the Democratic primary and faced only token Republican opposition in the general election. A career was born.

“Whatever vision I had for a more noble kind of politics,” writes Obama in his memoir, “it would have to wait.” That day has never come. Democratic politics in particular remain as mired in corruption as they were when Obama first ran for office 25 years ago, and he knows this.

Trump has chosen to tackle this swamp monster head on. If Obama were not such a flaming hypocrite, he would applaud the effort. “If you let this go,” an honest Obama would tell Trump, “you won’t be doing anybody a damn bit of good.”

Jack Cashill’s new book, Unmasking Obama: The Fight to Tell the True Story of a Failed Presidency, is now widely available. See for more information.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Real Target of ‘Anti-Racism’ Protests: Western Civilization, and Its Values – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on August 17, 2020

There was, however, a jarring incoherence in the whole enterprise. Even though the protests were ostensibly about the supposedly pervasive racism in Britain, they were launched and conducted in the name of George Floyd. The question that arises is this: If you are protesting racism in the UK, why do you do it in the name of a man who had nothing to do with the UK?


That Western civilization is in crisis has been obvious to some people for some time. The dramatic events of recent months in America and Europe have brought home with great vividness and immediacy the seriousness of this crisis. The protests and looting that swept through the United States quickly turned dozens of inner American cities into something akin to bombed out war zones. The surging wave of violence and anarchy, however, was not the only issue of deep concern. Equally alarming was our society’s response to it. Instead of taking measures to reestablish order and the rule of law, our political system malfunctioned at the moment of emergency. Fractious and paralyzed, the political establishment not only failed to implement meaningful measures to take control of the situation, it – unbelievably – tied the hands of the law enforcement, forcing it to stand by as destruction unfolded right before our eyes. Rather than encouraging and empowering the police to fight the unfolding anarchy, the events took a truly bizarre twist when some politicians and public officials began cutting funding for the very bodies and agencies tasked with protection of public order.

It is no exaggeration to say that the protests shook our society to its very foundations. They exposed a number of latent fault lines and further exacerbated those that had been painfully obvious before. The situation suddenly appeared to be so dire that many people began to fear that our nation – and indeed the whole of Western society – may be on the brink of disintegration. These fears may well be justified, since America was not the only country so shaken. Protests of similar natured gripped other Western democracies as well.

Most would now agree that the West is in the throes of an existential crisis. What is not so clear or agreed upon, however, is the nature of the crisis or even what the core issues and problems are. This lack of clarity is disconcerting, because if we cannot accurately identify the cause, we cannot take effective measures to address it. The first step toward understanding the nature of our plight, therefore, is to grasp what these protests were really about, since they obviously represented a violent eruption of the discontent and pathologies that have been festering in the Western psyche and which now threaten to engulf and destroy our societies.

The stated reason for these protests – both in the United States and Europe – was racism, which is said to be the great moral failing of our civilization. In the United States especially, we saw protesters asserting with great vehemence and anger that our society is oppressive toward minorities, particularly black people. But for anyone who knows the situation in the United States there was something fundamentally problematic with these assertions. They just don’t ring true.

Even though it is true that the United States has had a history of racial injustice – as, in fact, almost all countries have – it is most definitely not the case today. In a sincere effort to correct past wrongs, in the last sixty years the United States has undertaken tremendous efforts to assist and uplift its black population. This massive multipronged undertaking has been carried out with great resolution and at tremendous cost. It took the form of financial and material assistance, of various types of reverse discrimination, racial quotas in employment and education, preferential treatment of various kinds, lowering of professional and educational standards for black people and a host of other measures. Most of this was motivated by a genuine desire to improve the lives and situation of African Americans.

After six decades of this we can say with complete confidence that never in history has a power-yielding majority done so much for a racial minority as white Americans have done for black Americans. As the writer Fred Reed put it: “In truth, America has made the greatest effort ever essayed by one race to uplift another. 

The fact is that not only black people have equal rights – individual, civil, legal and political – with whites, but our current societal system is actually biased in favor of racial minorities. If truth be told, blacks in America today enjoy more protections, rights and advantage than white people do. American whites are the only ruling majority that has voluntarily relinquished its hold on power and made blacks the most protected, financially supported and privileged racial minority in history. This much is obvious to any objective observer.

Racism the American way: The 44nd President of the United States with the first lady and the first family

The claim that the United States is a racist society is thus completely at variance with reality. It is simply not true. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

How ignorant British policy inflamed the war in Syria  | Middle East Eye

Posted by M. C. on June 2, 2020

In the first years of his presidency, Assad was warmly welcomed in London and even met the Queen. The British Syrian Society brought dozens of MPs to Syria before the war, and beyond official British visits, a glance at the society’s events page shows a who’s who of the UK’s top business, political and social elite.  

When the war began, however, the government was not interested in talking or listening, as Cameron appeared to be driven by a Blair-esque desire for righteous wars. Yet, MPs historically defeated Cameron and the Foreign Office’s push in 2013 to launch attacks on Syria, seeing a lack of strategy in the endgame.

Kamal Alam

A 2017 BBC Panorama investigation showed how UK aid money was being diverted to terrorist funding in Syria without basic checks and balances. Jonathan Foreman’s book Aiding and Abetting previously argued that British aid in general has proved counterproductive because of a lack of proper research and application.

The recent MEE revelations about British propaganda efforts in Syria further undermine the UK’s rationale for its divisive policy, casting a grim light on its supposed neutrality in foreign conflicts.

Questioning UK policy

Several former British ambassadors to Syria were opposed to the UK’s foreign manoeuvring during the early days of the war, before all hell broke loose and Syria spiralled into a regional conflict. So what was the UK’s endgame? Was it to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, or just weaken him – or was it complete regime change?

The UK’s actions certainly have not contributed to stability. This is all the more alarming, as more than any other Western country, the UK had forged close ties with the Syrian government, with dozens of MPs visiting Syria before the war broke out. Many diplomats and military officials with knowledge, experience and insights into Syria have questioned the UK’s policy.

The UK has been obsessed with the ‘Assad must go’ notion, which has inhibited rational policy

Joshua Landis, a leading Syria expert in the US, wrote in 2011 that the Syrian government would likely survive, and that there would have to be a negotiated way out of the conflict.

Similarly, the late Patrick Seale, whose books on prewar Syria top the reading list on the Levant, argued that the opposition was not united and regime change would fail, citing the need for a negotiated path.

Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair’s adviser, Ed Husain, argued the same narrative in 2011. But these warnings were not heeded. Instead, the UK took an exceptionally hostile approach to Syria, without looking to the consequences.

Confused and hostile

The UK arguably led the US into going headstrong into Syria, even as Libya had begun to unravel. Former US President Barack Obama, in an Atlantic interview, launched an astonishing attack on former UK Prime Minister David Cameron, arguing that he took his eye off the ball without finishing the job in Libya, and then moved on to Syria, urging war there.

David Lesch, author of The New Lion of Damascus, has told me several times that after his meetings with both the UK and US leaderships in the early days of the war, it was the British who seemed confused and more hostile towards Damascus.

Former British Prime Minister David Cameron speaks at a Syria donors’ conference in central London in 2016 (AFP)
Former British Prime Minister David Cameron speaks at a Syria donors’ conference in central London in 2016 (AFP)

In the first years of his presidency, Assad was warmly welcomed in London and even met the Queen. The British Syrian Society brought dozens of MPs to Syria before the war, and beyond official British visits, a glance at the society’s events page shows a who’s who of the UK’s top business, political and social elite.

When the war began, however, the government was not interested in talking or listening, as Cameron appeared to be driven by a Blair-esque desire for righteous wars. Yet, MPs historically defeated Cameron and the Foreign Office’s push in 2013 to launch attacks on Syria, seeing a lack of strategy in the endgame.

Then and since, the UK has been obsessed with the “Assad must go” notion, which has inhibited rational policy. Anyone who suggests the opposite is declared an “Assadist” or regime supporter. The then chairman of the UK Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, Crispin Blunt, had written in The Telegraph that removing Assad was not the solution. The chairman of the Defence Committee, Julian Lewis, also argued similarly on the BBC and the Guardian.

They clearly did not see an overall policy or strategy in Syria. If the two most fundamental oversight committees in Parliament were not convinced that says a lot.

‘Politics by other means’

Military leaders studying Clausewitz are taught that “war is a continuation of politics by other means”. Once the war had peaked, the UK’s former defence chief told CNN that it would be better to let Assad win and negotiate.

REVEALED: The British government’s covert propaganda campaign in Syria

Read More »

Other leading generals, including Sir Simon Mayall, a former UK top military adviser in the Middle East, have suggested that UK policy was hampered by “wishful thinking” and ignorance. Former army chief General Richard Dannatt said the solution lay in working with Assad to talk and end the war.

Two decorated former heads of British special forces, Jonathan Shaw and John Holmes, both told me previously how wrong the UK had been with regards to Syria. Former British ambassador Sir Roger Tomkys also told me that the UK was wrong in jumping the gun to oust Assad, and three former ambassadors have voiced publicly their opposition as well.

The UK’s support of clandestine groups that were terrorists, coupled with propaganda support to spread divisions and hatred, inflamed the war in Syria. There has never been a proper strategy; far from it.

Be seeing you



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Collusion Is in the Eye of the Beholder

Posted by M. C. on May 25, 2020

It is particularly symbolic that in the midst of this imbroglio, the FBI just accidentally revealed the name of another Saudi embassy official complicit in the September 11 attacks, whose identity was long kept hidden by the US government as a “state secret” whose revelation could cause “significant harm to the national security.” Collusion, foreign adversary, national security: in Washington, it’s all in the eye of the beholder.

Branko Marcetic

Russiagate looks less like a righteous crusade for truth and justice and more like the typical shenanigans for which the FBI and US security state have long been known: prosecutorial overreach, entrapment, and the criminalization of foreign policy dissent.


The crux of Russiagate is that it’s a political scandal masquerading as a criminal one.

The interminable scandal has been back in the news this past week thanks to the Trump Department of Justice’s decision to drop charges against Michael Flynn. Flynn was once briefly Trump’s national security advisor before being fired and then charged with lying to the FBI over a phone conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition. Last Thursday, the House Intelligence Committee finally released fifty-seven transcripts of closed-door interviews it conducted with various key players in the saga over 2017 and 2018, covering Flynn’s call with Kislyak and other matters.

Since the news dropped, every effort has been made to turn Flynn’s absolution into the latest Trump outrage. Barack Obama himself weighed in, charging in a leaked phone call with supporters that “there is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free,” and that the “rule of law is at risk.”

Four years into this chaotic and reactionary presidency, there are more than enough legitimate Trump scandals to go around. But as with many things Russiagate, both the Flynn case and the release of the transcripts reflect far more poorly on the Obama administration, American’s hallowed national security institutions, and the anti-Trump “Resistance.”

Understanding why requires going all the way back to 2016 and the beginnings of the Flynn case. Flynn was a former intelligence official pushed out of the Obama administration over, among other things, his management style. Years later, he became a characteristically weird Trump guy: a heterodox foreign policy thinker who combined occasional opposition to endless war with conspiratorial Islamophobia, and became nationally known for flirting with the “alt-right” and chanting “Lock her up!” at the 2016 RNC.

Flynn’s loyalty to Trump was rewarded that year when he was announced as the president-elect’s national security advisor. At the same time, Flynn had, like many in Trump’s orbit, been investigated by the FBI over whether he was a Kremlin agent, and only further raised hackles after it was leaked that he had spoken to Kislyak the same day that Obama ordered sanctions and expelled thirty-five Russian embassy officials as retaliation for Russia’s interference in that year’s election.

Flynn was, at first, pushed out by Trump when it turned out he had caused Vice President Mike Pence to unwittingly lie about the contact. He was then later charged by Robert Mueller and his team in the course of the “collusion” probe with lying to the FBI (not, as Obama claimed, perjury), which at the time was cause for much speculation: it was the umpteenth “beginning of the end” of Trump’s presidency but ultimately produced no new revelations about a Trump-Russia conspiracy. Now, he’s been allowed to skip a maximum of five years in jail and walk away “scot-free,” as Obama put it.

But through it all and since, details have trickled out that have made the entire saga far less clear-cut than those most invested in the “collusion” narrative would have the public believe. For one, despite all the innuendo around Flynn’s Russian contacts and his sitting next to Putin at a dinner, investigators found nothing unseemly when looking into Flynn and had all but closedtheir investigation into him when the news about the Kislyak call broke.

Secondly, the charge Flynn was ultimately slapped with, lying to the FBI, now looks more like a case of entrapment. Recently released notes written by Bill Priestep, former FBI counterintelligence director, prior to interviewing Flynn about the Kislyak call suggest the Bureau was looking at the option to “get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired.” In the notes, Priestep wrote that “I believe we should rethink this,” that simply showing Flynn evidence so he could admit wrongdoing wasn’t “going easy on him” and was routine FBI practice, and that “if we’re seen as playing games, WH [White House] will be furious,” so they should “protect our institution by not playing games.”

What’s more, contemporaneous notes show that the investigators themselves weren’t sure Flynn had intentionally lied to them, and that Comey himself had said so in a March 2017 briefing, before claiming he had never said anything of the sort after being fired by Trump.

There were further improprieties in the investigation. Flynn has claimed, with some evidence, that the FBI pressured him to sit down for the interview without a lawyer. Additionally, two years ago, Comey himself admitted that he had violated protocol by sending investigators to interview Flynn without going through the White House counsel, calling it “something I probably wouldn’t have done or maybe gotten away with in … a more organized administration.”

Things get worse when one goes through the Mueller team’s interview notes for then-acting Attorney General Sally Yates and Mary McCord,

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

There is Nothing ‘Loony’ About Bill Ayers as Obama’s Muse – American Thinker

Posted by M. C. on March 9, 2020

By Jack Cashill

This past week several people called my attention to a post by Scott Johnson on his influential PowerLine blog that addressed the literary relationship between Barack Obama and his radical friend, Bill Ayers.

In the post Johnson spoke of his high regard for David Garrow’s “staggeringly researched” 2017 Obama biography, Rising Star. “Without resolving all mysteries,” Johnson writes, “[Garrow’s] scholarship belies the notion that [Dreams from My Father] was ghostwritten by Bill Ayers or other such collaborator.”

Johnson emailed Garrow to follow up on the authorship question, and Garrow responded, “I don’t recall exactly where the Bill Ayers [stuff] got started, but it, like the Frank-Davis-as-father notion, is just beyond loony, ’cause Dreams is already *in galleys* when Barack and Bill first get to know each other.”

I do know where the Ayers stuff got started because I started it with a major assist from American Thinker on these pages on October 9, 2008. I never said Ayers wrote Dreams, but I presented overwhelming literary forensic evidence that Ayers, a skilled writer and editor, helped Obama shape Dreams.

I did not advance this theory casually. I understood then what Obama biographer David Remnick would later affirm, namely that my theory, “if ever proved true, or believed to be true among enough voters, could have been the end of [Obama’s] candidacy.”

My research on this topic, aided by several helpful literary detectives, culminated in my 2011 book, published by Simon & Schuster, Deconstructing Obama. I think I can safely assume Garrow has never read it. I would invite those curious about the evidence to read the book or even to read the preliminary article cited above.

That Garrow does not know the source of a theory he dismisses offhand as “beyond loony” is, unfortunately, altogether typical of establishment political writers. His airy dismissal, in fact, reinforces the theme of my forthcoming book Unmasking Obama: The Fight to Tell the True Story of a Failed Presidency.

In the book, I use the phrase “samizdat” — Russian for underground press — to describe the loose coalition of conservative blogs, online publications, talk radio shows, and legal monitors such as Judicial Watch that challenged the Left — and, occasionally, the “responsible” right — for control of the Obama narrative.

For eight-plus years, the samizdat broke virtually every major unflattering story about Obama and his presidency, some of which the major media grudgingly confirmed, some of which they continue to suppress. In the book I tell how the individuals in question managed to break these stories out. In every case, as you might imagine, the samizdat journalists were met with condescension, if not outright contempt, from the major media.

Obama’s biographers were among the more contemptuous. Curiously, the four major biographers are all named David — Mendell, Remnick, Maraniss, and Garrow. The last three are Pulitzer Prize winners. To his credit, Garrow was the only one of the four who refused to prop up what Remnick called Obama’s “signature appeal: the use of the details of his own life as a reflection of a kind of multicultural ideal.”

The story Obama told about his happy multicultural family at the conventions was pure fiction. According to Garrow, Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, and Barack Obama Sr. “never chose to live together at any time following the onset of Ann’s pregnancy.” Garrow quotes approvingly one unnamed scholar to the effect that Obama Sr. was no more than “a sperm donor in his son’s life.” All of this was common knowledge in the samizdat as early as 2008, but it came as news to many of Garrow’s readers in 2017.

Like his fellow Davids, however, Garrow has no use for information gleaned from the samizdat, especially information I introduced. On the subject of the Obama poem “Pop,” for instance, Garrow notes, “Most commentators presumed that Obama had written about his grandfather, Stan Dunham, not Frank Marshall Davis.”

This much was true, but “hostile critics,” Garrow continues, insisted the poem was about Obama’s bi-sexual Communist mentor, Davis. The “hostile critics” Garrow cites in the footnotes are historian Paul Kengor and me.

Instead of giving me credit for being the first to decode “Pop,” Garrow describes me in the footnote as “someone who is cited with the greatest reluctance.” What I did to deserve this slight is left unsaid, especially since Garrow knows I nailed the identity of “Pop” two years before anyone in the mainstream media did, including the other Davids.

As to Bill Ayers’s involvement in the writing of Dreams, Garrow does not even deign to dismiss the possibility. He has a discovery of his own, namely that outside literary help came from a law school buddy of Obama’s named Rob Fisher.  This is an important find if for no other reason than it undercuts Obama’s 2008 boast to a crowd of schoolteachers, “I’ve written two books. I actually wrote them myself.”

An established economist before starting law school, Fisher became good friends with Obama at Harvard. There, they co-authored a manuscript that perhaps prophetically was never finished. One completed chapter dealt with the always sexy topic of plant closings.

“The quest is to develop guidelines,” they wrote, “on how politically progressive movements can use the market mechanism to promote social goals.” Garrow quotes the unfinished manuscript extensively. Its style is wonkish and ungainly throughout.

Sentences like the following suggest that one author wrote as awkwardly as the other: “While Yuppies can afford the expensive frivolities provided by The Sharper Image, others receive insufficient nutrition to allow their minds to develop properly.”

I do not question Fisher’s involvement. Obama needed all the help he could get. What I do question is Fisher’s ability to provide the poetry, the rage, the postmodern rhetoric, and the Homeric structure that inspired Oona King of the London Times to overpraise Dreams as “a beautifully written personal memoir steeped in honesty.”

Garrow seems to dismiss my thesis for no more substantial reason than his belief that Dreams was already in galley form when “Barack and Bill first get to know each other.” Garrow traces the first meeting of these two gentlemen to a breakfast some time in early 1995. He bases this timing on the suspiciously well-remembered account of a common friend who claims to have introduced them.

Garrow, however, has a problem with chronology. He writes that Obama took six weeks off from his law firm job “in late spring 1994” to finish Dreams. He needed time to complete the book’s third section, the one on Africa. Garrow claims Obama worked largely from letters he sent in 1988 while in Kenya and retrieved from his girlfriend at the time, Sheila Jager.

David Maraniss told a different story in his 2012 bio. According to Maraniss’s source, Crown editor Henry Ferris, Obama made an additional trip to Kenya for further research. Obama confirmed this trip when interviewed by Marannis. Garrow makes no mention of this mysterious trip, which would have taken place in 1994. No one else does either. Like much in his life, Obama appears to have made it up.

A more likely possibility is that Obama lied to Ferris about the trip. Instead of going to Kenya, Obama may have contented himself with going to the local library and pillaging the memoirs of longtime Kenya resident Kuki Gallmann

This is the theory proposed by tireless researcher Shawn Glasco. He was intrigued by the many words and phrases in Dreams that also appeared in Gallmann’s book, African Nights, which was published in 1994. These include Baobab [a tree], bhang [cannabis], boma [an enclosure], samosa [a fried snack], shamba [a farm field], liana [a vine], tilapia [a fish], kanga [a sheet of fabric], shuka [decorative sashes], and many, many more.

Based on Garrow’s imprecise timeline, Obama flew to New York to hand the completed book off to Ferris no later than early June 1994. In other words, he spent six weeks to finish the last third of the 400-page book between “late spring” 1994 and early June 1994, which is, in fact, late spring.

In his 2009 book, Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage, celebrity biographer Christopher Andersen offers a much more credible account of how Obama managed to finish a project that hung over his head ever since he finished law school.

According to Andersen’s two sources in Chicago’s Hyde Park, Obama found himself deeply in debt and “hopelessly blocked.” At “Michelle’s urging,” Obama “sought advice from his friend and Hyde Park neighbor Bill Ayers.” Noting that Obama had already taped interviews with many of his relatives, both African and American, Andersen elaborated, “These oral histories, along with his partial manuscript and a trunkload of notes were given to Ayers.” Andersen’s six-page account makes sense, logically and chronologically, but Garrow fully ignores it.

Andersen is a best-selling, mainstream author. He even appeared on MSNBC’s Hardball to discuss the book. Said Chris Matthews at the end of the interview, “You‘re amazing, successful guy. You have a winning streak here.” Matthews likely did not read the book. Garrow did read it and cites the book in the footnotes but, oddly, not on the subject of authorship.

Garrow nonetheless offers some valuable insights into the Ayers-Obama relationship, insights that I believe strengthen my thesis. Once Ayers helped launch Obama’s political career in 1995, Garrow writes, “Barack and Michelle began to see a great deal more of not only Bill and Bernardine [Dohrn] but also their three closest friends, Rashid and Mona Khalidi and Carole Travis.”

According to Garrow, the three couples attended “almost nightly dinners” together up until the time Obama ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004. This information, of course, makes complete hash out of Obama’s infamous claim during a 2008 debate that Ayers was “just a guy who lives in my neighborhood.”

Khalidi, a radical Palestinian, begins his 2004 book, Resurrecting Empire, with a tribute to his own literary muse. “First, chronologically and in other ways,” writes Khalidi, “comes Bill Ayers.” Unlike the calculating Obama, Khalidi had no reason to be coy about this relationship.  He elaborates, “Bill was particularly generous in letting me use his family’s dining room table to do some writing for the project.”  Khalidi did not need the table.  He had one of his own. He needed help from the skilled neighborhood editor and writer who obviously could and would provide it.

There is nothing “loony” about Bill Ayers helping a good friend finish his book. That is what Ayers did. He was grooming Obama for higher office and was savvy enough to keep his writing relationship with Obama under wraps. Being a friend of a terrorist, Ayers knew, would not exactly help Obama’s career.
Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Be seeing you


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Blago Is Free – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on February 20, 2020

His real “crime”, in the eyes of the monstrous Obama and his henchman Rahm Emmanuel, was that he refused to appoint the man Obama picked as his successor.


On Tuesday, February 18, President Trump with excellent judgment commuted the 14 year prison sentence of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, aka “Blago.”

“We have commuted the sentence of Rod Blagojevich,” Trump said. “He’ll be able to go back home with his family after serving eight years in jail. That was a tremendously powerful, ridiculous sentence in my opinion. And in the opinion of many others.”

The President thus brought to an end a disgraceful episode in American politics. After Barack Obama was elected President in 2008, his seat as Senator from Illinois became vacant. Blago was charged with trying to sell the seat.

If in fact Blago tried to sell the seat, he was just  practicing the dirty, rotten business of politics in the normal crooked fashion for Chicago and America. But out of all the corrupt pols, why did a federal prosecutor target a sitting governor, wiretap him, not allow him to use the wiretaps to defend himself, and send him to jail for 14 years?  His real “crime”, in the eyes of the monstrous Obama and his henchman Rahm Emmanuel, was that he refused to appoint the man Obama picked as his successor.

The indictment against Blago was unconstitutional. As the distinguished historian and authority on the Constitution Kevin Gutzman pointed out in an article written for LRC on January 6, 2009, “Interestingly, one might note that the statute Fitzgerald is enforcing against the governor bases Congress’s claim of power to criminalize corruption in state office on the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. One really wonders at the idea that conspiring to sell Jesse Jackson, Jr. a Senate seat is interstate commerce. No one takes this idea seriously; rather, it is based on a common lawyers’ corruption — yes, corruption — of language. On simple federal arrogation of state power. This corruption has far more far-reaching consequences than anything Blagojevich is accused of having done.”

The indictment and trial were gross miscarriages of justice, as President Trump has said. Harvey Silverglate in an article written in 2011 gave the best analysis of the whole rotten business: “The most controversial charge Blagojevich faced was that he planned to sell Barack Obama’s U.S. Senate seat. But Fitzgerald decided to come out swinging, terminated the wiretaps on Blagojevich’s home and office, arrested the then-sitting governor, held a sensational press conference, and called it a wrap before this alleged sale would have even taken place. Fitzgerald was obviously unwilling to wait out the unfolding situation to see if the governor was really serious about “selling” the seat to the highest bidder.

Had Blagojevich actually followed through with the sale of a Senate seat, Fitzgerald’s heavy-handed prosecutorial approach might have been justified. But in light of the fact that no seat was sold, and that these appointments are regularly used for political benefit, the reasonable doubt that a crime was actually committed would appear to be overwhelming. For a US Attorney who is known for “crossing his T’s and dotting his I’s,” you have to wonder why Fitzgerald didn’t spring into action after the sale of the seat, once the dirty deal was done. Blagojevich’s own writing may give us a clue. Blagojevich claims in his memoir, “The Governor,” that the goal of the Senate appointment was to get a political opponent out of the way, not to sell the seat for cash. If this scenario is to be believed, then Fitzgerald went forward with the case when he did because, had he waited until after the seat was filled, there would not have been a case since the seat would have been awarded not for cash, but for quite traditional political advantage.

One of the most shocking, and seemingly damning, sound bites that came from the wiretaps was Blagojevich’s assertion that Obama’s Senate seat was “a [expletive] valuable thing. You don’t just give it away for nothing.” A U.S. Attorney whose last few cases ended unfavorably might be interested in spinning this quote to seem as though a cash transaction was being arranged in exchange for the Senate seat. However, if Blagojevich were looking to use the seat for his political benefit, then his statement would be crass, but would also be evidence that he was operating within the parameters of the law. The type of political maneuvering engaged in by the then-governor may seem to the average citizen (or juror, for that matter), to be less than wholesome, perhaps even a bit sneaky, but if every unwholesome or sneaky maneuver were a crime, we would not be able to build the prisons quickly enough to meet demand.”

Why didn’t Fitzgerald wait? Joe Hall, writing on February 19 in Gateway Pundit has a good explanation. He says that Blago was set up by Mueller, Comey, and the Deep State Gang and that President Trump’s release of Blago may be intended to send the Gang the message that he will fight them. Hall cites investigative reporter Marty Waters, who said last August “that the Deep State, led by Comey and Mueller, did the same thing with the fraudulent Mueller investigation sham as they did in the past.  They create distraction, diversion and disinformationIn the early 2000’s they created Plamegate to distract and divert from the billions lost in Iraq and the weapons of mass destruction narrative that got the US into the war.  In the mid-2000’s, they created the Rezco/Blagogate scandals to cover up for Obama’s corrupt actions early in his administration and while in the US Senate.  The Mueller investigation distracted from the many crimes involving Obama and the Clintons and was in the same mold as the prior sham investigations.”

Hall sums up and concludes: “Of course Mueller was the Head of the FBI throughout most of the 2000’s and before Comey took over the now corrupted institution  Also, Comey claimed Fitzgerald was his attorney after it was suspected that Comey shared classified information with Fitzgerald during the Russian hoax scandal.”

After Trump commuted Blago’s sentence, Governor of Illinois J.B. Pritzker condemned the President’s decision. He said; “Illinoisans have endured far too much corruption, and we must send a message to politicians that corrupt practices will no longer be tolerated. President Trump has abused his pardon power in inexplicable ways to reward his friends and condone corruption, and I deeply believe this pardon sends the wrong message at the wrong time.”

Pritzker’s self-righteous moralizing is ironic.  According to a story in the Chicago Tribune published May 31, 2017, “Pritzker, a billionaire businessman with political ambitions, told Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich he was “really not that interested” in the U.S. Senate seat the governor was dealing in late 2008. Instead, Pritzker offered his own idea: Would Blagojevich make him Illinois treasurer?”

Blago is no angel, but I can’t help liking him. I admire his spirit. He refused to cave to Obama and the higher-ups. Now that he is out, he is free to tell us where the bodies are buried. You can be sure he knows a lot and with the commutation, the Feds can’t shut him up anymore.  Blago has Obama on the ropes, and fortunately for those of us who care about truth, he is a skilled boxing champ.

Be seeing you






Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Civil war RISK, state by state: Is your state likely to be drawn into kinetic conflict as the rule of law disintegrates across America? –

Posted by M. C. on December 31, 2019

Notably, all Americans need to understand that until John Brennan, James Comey, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are arrested and indicted, there is no legitimate, functioning rule of law in America. If the most malicious, treasonous criminals can still walk the streets as free people, even after carrying out the most heinous conspiracy of crimes against America, then we do not have any functioning rule of law at all.

If a civil war is ignited in 2020, it won’t be like the North vs. South arrangement of 1861 – 1865. Rather, it will be structured as a series of state-focused mini-civil wars that pit the armed, rural, pro-American patriots against the treasonous, lawless, anti-American Democrats in their capital cities.

Conflict will be local or regional, in other words, not national. If such conflicts occur where you live, you could very easily find yourself caught up in life-threatening disruptions such as power grid outages, local martial law or truckers refusing to enter the war zones, resulting in long-term supply line outages of food, fuel, medicine and other important supplies.

That’s why it’s important to consider the areas where local or regional civil war conflicts are likely to occur.

The states most likely to experience civil war conflicts if the lawless Democrats manage to ignite the war they want

Analysis: Such civil war scenarios are most likely to occur primarily in:

  • Democrat-controlled states
  • …that have large regions of conservative residents outside the capital cities
  • …where Democrats are increasingly aggressive in depriving rural residents of their Second Amendment rights
  • … and where gun ownership among private citizens is high

The states with the most restrictive gun laws are shown in the following map:

As you can see, states with the most restrictive gun laws include California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Minnesota, Illinois, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and virtually all the NE states except for Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont.

Among those states with the most restrictive gun laws, the states with the largest rural areas include California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Minnesota, Illinois and Pennsylvania.

This map shows the percentage of gun ownership among citizens of each state:

Note that even in anti-gun states with strict gun control laws, gun ownership is often one-quarter of the population or higher, indicating firearms ownership is very common.

And here’s a relatively recent map of which party is in charge of the governorships of each state (slightly outdated):

The states that fit the criteria for possible flare-ups of local or regional civil war are:

  • Virginia (due to its recent activity attacking 2A sanctuaries)
  • Washington
  • Oregon
  • California
  • Colorado
  • Minnesota
  • North Carolina
  • Pennsylvania
  • Illinois

I would put Oregon, Virginia, Washington and Colorado at the top of that list…

Thus, there exists the potential for local conflicts in all the following states, although this risk is likely lower than for the states mentioned earlier:

  • Nevada
  • Utah
  • Idaho
  • Wyoming
  • Arizona
  • New Mexico
  • Montana
  • Kentucky
  • Texas
  • Nebraska
  • Kansas
  • Oklahoma
  • Iowa
  • Missouri
  • Arkansas
  • Louisiana
  • Mississippi
  • Michigan
  • Wisconsin
  • Indiana
  • Tennessee
  • Alabama
  • Georgia
  • Ohio
  • West Virginia
  • Maine
  • New Hampshire
  • Vermont

Among those states, the ones most likely to experience smaller, local conflicts are probably New Mexico, Texas, Michigan and Georgia, all of which are mostly rural states characterized by extreme corruption and tyranny of Democrats who seek to destroy the rights of rural citizens.

States with strong democrat control throughout

States where Democrat control is so strong that no pro-America forces are likely to challenge their power include:

  • Connecticut
  • Maryland
  • New York
  • New Jersey
  • Rhode Island

California has a special status in all this, given that Gov. Newsom has his own private army and has already completed a secret deal with communist China to turn the West Coast ports into military landing zones for invading Chinese troops. (Newsom is a total criminal who should be indicted for treason.) This means rural Californians may find themselves fighting not only Democrat-controlled anti-America forces in the left-wing cities, but also facing invading foreign troops. The best strategy for pro-America Californians living outside the cities is to let the cities burn and don’t get sucked into urban combat. Let the Chinese troops face off against the MS-13 gang bangers and see who emerges the victor, then blow their heads off as they try to move Eastward or Northward…

This night lights map of the USA, overlaid with state boundaries, is particularly helpful for understanding this crucial point. When things go bad, you want to be as far away from the high-density lighted areas as possible:

Note that everything east of the Mississippi, except for the far northeast, is extremely dense in terms of population. The Eastern half of Texas is also quite dense, with way too much light in Dallas, Houston and San Antonio.

Denver is lit up, too, as is Phoenix. Along the west coast, you have extreme population density in southern California, plus the Bay Area, Portland and Seattle.

All these areas characterized by bright night lights are, of course, death traps in any collapse.

If you’re looking to get far, far away from other people, the answers are obvious: Utah, Wyoming, West Texas, Montana, eastern Oregon, Nevada, and so on.

You can even get away from a lot of it in northern California, or western Kansas, for example…

In fact, the way you respond to gunfire tells me everything I need to know about you. If your first inclination, upon hearing gunfire, is to panic and call the police, you are a weak-minded city dweller and probably not a survivor

Be seeing you



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »